Alameda wrote:
"Fisher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:08:52 +0200, Ken wrote:

I discuss flicker frequency.

Ken, meet Ken.

LOL the lack of insight and knowledge is pretty staggering,
especially for a gamer (not you Fisher - you're right on the button).
If you've ever played a FPS before, you will know that a game at
25fps is not much fun, basically turn around and you're dead, because
your mouse is striving for accuracy but shuddering against the slow
jerky framerate. It's horrible. Even at 40fps it's still horrible. At
40fps, the game's framerate might begin to look alright, but the
accuracy on the mouse is still a bit shaky - I think back to the
volcano level on Far Cry and those huge monsters, framerate dipping
around 35-39 and it was really dodgy, it felt really slow and I had a
lot less control. Then I switched to 4000+ and dual 6800GTs and the
thing flies, nothing seems a problem, you feel solely in control, at
a high resolution, max AA / AF, heck the difference a high framerate
has in terms of gameplay and enjoyment of the game is huge!

The problem with that reasoning is that not all gaming is FPS, which
some people seem to forget. Do you need more than 25fps to play
Civilization III or SimCity4? No, in those cases it's _much_ more
important that blits (like in full screen scrolling) are fast. How
about when landing a heavy under VFR in Flight Simulator 2004? No,
again, frame rate is not as important as the picture quality and
accuracy. If you can get both, that's swell, but most computer pilots
would be happy with lowering the frame rate to 24fps if it means a more
detailed and accurate world, so they don't try to land the A320 five
feet below the runway.

Again, stop equating gaming with FPS gaming. There's other types of
games with different requirements. Although a high FPS can be
desirable, it's far from necessary for all games, and the price for high
FPS can be too high, if it means taxing the CPU and FSB, leaving less
juice for other functions.

--
*Art